a reply to: TheBadCabbie
Edit to add: I'd be very suspicious of the 1/2 moa claim... Maybe he could get that from a Fulton or a Smith made gun but LOL not from a Springfield.
Honestly without a national match gun and high dollar match grade ammo it's just not really believable.
That's because people who buy and use Springfield's just get used to buying replacement parts. I know a guy who bought an M1A recently, he sprang for
the good model too... 3 rounds before a breakage. 3 months waiting for parts.
Here's the basic problem, the M14 was never a good rifle. Even after they "sorted out" the manufacturing issues it still required constant attention
from armorer's to keep running. There's a reason it was the nation's shortest service length rifle in our country's history!
Some people will come back and say well how come they brought them back for the war on terror?
1. Because they had lots of them still in storage, almost all of them basically new.
2. Each rifle had to be got out worked over by very high level armorer's before being sent to the field.
3. In the relatively short period they were used for during the recent wars they basically burned through ALL of the "good" ones they had stored! Keep
in mind that there weren't all that many people using them and we had at least 60,000 in storage to start.
4. The average time each rifle spent in the field before rework or disposal was laughably short. Especially when you consider there are still national
guardsmen being issued GM hydramatic M16's that began life as A1's in the 60's
Now onto the really bad news.
1. The M14 was designed and built to use a 22 inch barrel.
2. Just like the tanker garands back in the day when you start cutting barrel length and gas system length an already breakage prone mechanism becomes
3. Just like the M14 it's based on, the M1a often requires trained M14 specialist gunsmiths for everything but very minor parts changes.
4. Parts aren't cheap for the M1A and you can often find yourself waiting 2-16 weeks to get a part so you can then wait 2-6 months for the closest M14
smith to install it.
Honestly the M1A is the gun I'd wish on my enemy. Even in fairly pristine firing range environments it's still a maintenance heavy time sucking parts
breaking mess! Oh yeah and magazines are expensive and heavy.. So is the gun
Now on the AR10 type rifles you have a system where parts are cheap, available from dozens or even HUNDREDS of vendors, almost always in stock
somewhere, and most importantly basically 100% plug and play! Parts swaps take seconds to minutes not hours, and basically anyone who can work on an
AR15 can work on an AR10 meaning if you need work done for some reason it's 2 hours to 2 weeks not 2-6 months. You're also looking at WAY less cost if
a Smith needs to do something on it!
There really is no comparison between the M1A and AR10 variants... Also keep in mind what we know as the AR10 really didn't come into existence until
the 90's or so when Eugene stoner designed the SR-25 for knight armaments and the DPMS LR308 pattern started gaining traction.
Another place where the AR10 beats the M1A is in everything from replacement parts, furniture, magazines, scope mounts and more are all cheaper and
available from tons of sources in a nearly infinite variety of possibilities letting you configure and customize the rifles to fit you and your
P.s: All I'm going to say about Springfield beyond what I already said is their biggest selling product isn't even theirs. The XD pistols are in
reality made by HS product in Croatia. Springfield just licensed the design and I think even today still directly imports them from Croatia. They're
not a super trustworthy company either and basically just appropriated the Springfield Armory name to give themselves legitimacy. They have zero
connection to the real Springfield.
edit on 23-9-2016 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)